MORGAN-WHYALLA PIPELINE

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:50): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes the rusty condition of the Morgan to Whyalla pipeline; and

(b) urges the government and SA Water to immediately begin a painting program to protect the pipeline from further corrosion.

Since I gave notice of this motion some time ago, I have noted there has been some painting commenced near the Spalding end of this pipe.

Mr Sibbons: Was it you?

Mr VENNING: No, it wasn't me. But they have got a long way to go, so I will continue. The Morgan to Whyalla pipeline is a significant historical asset in our state and spans some 379 kilometres. Construction of this first $5 million pipeline commenced in 1940 and was completed in 1944 and, up until now, it has been pretty well maintained: that is why it is still there after all these years. The pipeline was constructed because it soon became evident, with the expansion of industries in Whyalla, that the continued growth of the region would depend entirely on the provision of an assured water supply.

A second pipeline, the duplication, was built in 1963, and I can recall that quite clearly, again to meet Whyalla's industrial expansion. Historical documents state that the construction of the pipeline was regarded as urgent to ensure the state's future. It was a huge project. Imagine doing something like that even today with modern equipment. It was a big outlay and a credit to the government of the day, particularly premier Playford—that man, again.

This pipeline is a vital asset for Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla, and all the towns in between. Sadly, its current condition is deplorable. The external aspects of the pipeline are rusting significantly and I would go as far as saying that it is becoming almost an eyesore in places. It is vital that this pipeline, which essentially acts as a lifeline, is maintained to its best possible condition.

As we know, rust can destroy anything, and I am a big advocate of ensuring our assets are maintained and retained in their original condition, rust free. Once it rusts through and starts to leak, we will be in serious trouble. Remember the old adage: a stitch in time saves nine—in this case, probably 29. Regular maintenance and a regular painting program will extend the life of this pipeline, and the cost of maintaining it would be far less than having to replace parts of the pipeline in the near future.

This government really needs to become more proactive. To see this pipeline rusting is appalling. It is not just an eyesore: it is money going down the drain—or is it the pipeline? The government is more concerned about big flashy buildings for their staff, particularly in Victoria Square. When you consider the SA Water office building in the heart of the city—a building they do not even own—and the $21 million spent to fit it out, it really makes you wonder where their priorities are. I wonder what the maintenance costs for infrastructure like this would be. Here we have an essential piece of the state's infrastructure just left to rust out.

I gave notice of this motion to the house last month and I noted a few weeks ago, as I drove near Spalding, that it appeared that some painting of the pipeline had begun. I hope my eyesight was not failing me and that SA Water had realised the awful state this pipeline was in and taken some action because, if the government does not paint this pipeline and begin to maintain it properly, maybe an alternative will have to be found.

Painting this is a pretty straightforward job and could be undertaken by unskilled workers, which could be service groups, working for the dole groups, prisoners from Cadell, or even retired MPs. Irrespective, this is a major state asset and it is a disgrace to see the condition it is in. I urge the house to support this motion and to, therefore, encourage SA Water to step up the painting to protect this vital state asset.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:54): I wish to support the member for Schubert's motion today. I do so having inspected the pipeline about five years ago with one of my constituents, who rang me out of concern about the lack of maintenance. When the member for Schubert proposed this motion I thought I would do justice to the time spent and to the letter that was sent to the responsible minister at the time and the reply that came back.

Much of the pipeline on Yorke Peninsula was installed in the 1950s when there was a greater network of SA Water staff in the area, therefore a lot more time was devoted to the maintenance of the pipeline. There was a very strong belief in the community that it was all safe and that nothing would be a problem.

There is a sand and metal merchant in my town who is also a machinery operator, and I know that they get called out quite often to repair breaks to pipelines. That is probably a more efficient way of managing the infrastructure, and I understand that. However, in a financially challenging situation people might deem that level of service to support infrastructure to be an excess and it could be criticised, but for those of us who live in areas where the underground water supply situation is not always good and the SA Water network is relied upon to provide water to the area, the maintenance of the pipework is the real pure thing.

About five years ago Mr Price—and there are quite a few Mr Prices—from the Paskeville area contacted me—

Mr Venning: Lots of them.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, there are lots of them—and asked me to come up and go around in his ute to look at a few of the pipe networks. When you get up close, you can understand why the member for Schubert has moved this motion: for it to be looked at and an appropriate painting program be put in place to try to protect the infrastructure that is there, because there were some areas of real concern. He did not contact me just trying to be flippant or cheeky or smart; he did so out of a concern about the security of the water network and after recognising the damage that can occur quite easily and what can happen to a community when a break occurs and a water supply is not available.

Yorke Peninsula had an example of what that could be like in early 2000, I think, when the Paskeville storage dam—which was exposed then—had an algal outbreak, which made it impossible for people to drink the water that was in the pipe network supplying all of Yorke Peninsula, other than the Copper Coast area. People had to either drink bottled water or rely upon their rainwater. SA Water had to put an enormous amount of effort into getting bottled water supplies out to people to try to give those who did not necessarily have a rainwater supply a water supply. That was a real crisis. It was not long after I returned to York Peninsula that that the Paskeville storage dam was upgraded. The previous member for Goyder, Mr John Meier, put a lot of effort into ensuring the upgrade of that storage dam. A bladder-type configuration, like a waterbed, was constructed there to give some protection from the algal outbreak and to ensure a guaranteed supply of water.

I see the linkages between not only dams but pipes as being very close, and that is why I think this motion is appropriate. At times, I have written asking for a copy of the details relevant to my area of the inspection regimes that take place on the water network, their life expectancy and the amount allocated to regular maintenance required to ensure that that expectancy is reached and that people's supplies are guaranteed as much as possible.

This is not a cheeky motion from the member for Schubert. It is actually quite a serious issue that affects much of regional South Australia and all the metropolitan area that has pipes underneath the ground that burst from time to time, too. This motion has been moved on the basis that a really important infrastructure is there for all of us. I would hate there to be a situation where water was required for a firefighting situation and a break occurred in a pipeline. That is the absolute dilemma for me because that would create the perfect storm: where we desperately need water to control a fire. We might suck every nearby tank dry to get the water we need but no pipe network would be working properly to do water refills to control the fire because of an infrastructure issue that caused a break. So I support the member for Schubert's motion and hope that the parliament takes the issue seriously and has some detailed contact with SA Water about the efforts that it does make.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:59): I also rise to speak on the motion of the member for Schubert and reinforce the importance of maintaining the Morgan to Whyalla pipeline in particular to ensure that it does not deteriorate any further. The importance of the Morgan to Whyalla pipeline is very important to not only Port Pirie but also Port Augusta, Whyalla and the Copper Coast; it also now goes across to Kimba. The issue is also that if we allow a great asset like this to deteriorate then, in fact, it will actually create more issues across the whole of the state. Adelaide, in particular, has got its security of water, but, as members here have indicated, and as the member for Goyder pointed out very clearly, the issue is that if there is a burst pipe and then, God forbid, we have a fire, then we will not have the opportunity to be able to fight that fire.

Some years ago, I understand from memory, Port Augusta had a burst water pipe. I will not say in this house what Mayor Joy Baluch's comments were to me with regard to the burst pipeline there, but it did create great issues there with not only the safety of the community but also the firefighting opportunities, and SA Water had to supply thousands of bottles of water, which is not only a cost factor, but it is a very unsavoury way of doing it in a great state like South Australia. I will continue my remarks later.

Debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00]